Soren Johnson at GDC22, covering Anton Strenger's "Bringing New Myths and Representation to Civ"

[The_J]

Anton Strenger, the lead designer of the Civ6 "New Frontier Pass", has given a presentation at this year's "Game Developer's Conference". His presentation was titled "Ahistorical Accuracy: Bringing New Myths and Representation to 'Civilization'", and you can find the summary here. The talks were recorded, but he does not yet know if the recording will be freely available.

During the talk Soren Johnson, the lead designer for Civ4 and also for Old World, has covered parts of the presentation on Twitter. The related Tweets have been collected below.

1) https://twitter.com/SorenJohnson/status/1507461816435154950
"Stenger: Civ 6 Secret Society messes with the Great Person theory because there is an eternal force greater than you."

2) https://twitter.com/SorenJohnson/status/1507463155370233857
"Stenger: When choosing leaders for Civ 6, we want diversity across each axis here. A resistance leader (even if ultimately a “loser” of history) is just as important to include as a “victor” is."

3) https://twitter.com/SorenJohnson/status/1507464183087960068
"Stenger: Ba Trieu is a good example of a interesting new leader we added to Civ 6 to represent a resistance instead of a conqueror."

4) https://twitter.com/SorenJohnson/status/1507464968949551104
"Stenger: For Civ 6 NFP, the additions are “ice cream toppings” that sat on top of stable systems, which is ok b/c we were finishing Civ 6. Secret Societies sit on top of Governors, for example."
(no screenshot)

5) https://twitter.com/SorenJohnson/status/1507465791578378241
"Stenger: NFP drew more active players into Civ 6 than either expansion. (Firaxis essentially moves to a live-ops model for NFP instead of the traditional expansion model inherited from its time as a boxed product.)"

6) https://twitter.com/SorenJohnson/status/1507466188510572550
"Stenger: Civ 6 Simon Bolivar character led to this Venezuelan player seeing his culture represented in media for the first time as something other than a villain."

7) https://twitter.com/SorenJohnson/status/1507467182648688643
"Stenger: My job is to simply recognize the best idea, not to come up with it."

8) https://twitter.com/SorenJohnson/status/1507468478839619591
"First question to @antonstrenger after his Civ 6 talk - Why did it take so long to put Portugal into the game? Classic Civ question!"

9) "During the Q&A, @antonstrenger demonstrated what I will term the Johnson Law of 4X Talks (as I have done the same thing): When put on the spot, no one can ever remember what the final X in 4X stands for."


A comment from another developer, Taylor Fisher https://twitter.com/TFischConcept/status/1507466020092588033
"This is a great story @KatNicoleB and I literally made a spreadsheet and barged our way into every meeting possible to argue for more diversity. During the game**ate Era, this took immense bravery, and it got a TON of backlash that the studio stood up against."


We hope that the talk will be freely available, so that we can fill in all the wholes in between too .

 

[Zegangani]

4) "Stenger: For Civ 6 NFP, the additions are “ice cream toppings” that sat on top of stable systems, which is ok b/c we were finishing Civ 6. [...]"

So, I guess that answers the Question wether we get a Final Frontier Pass/another DLC for Civ6 or not

Anyway, would love to hear Anton Strenger's talk, especially on NFP; bc I think it would be interesting to get some insights on how NFP was designed and the dev's Ideas behind it.

 

[The_J]

Anyway, would love to hear Anton Strenger's talk, especially on NFP; bc I think it would be interesting to get some insights on how NFP was designed and the dev's Ideas behind it.

I would think that is kinda answered. It's more or less the left-over ideas, which couldn't coherently packaged.

I'm myself more curious how the NFP drew in more players than the previous expansions. I'd expect this to get less with time, since some people will lose interest and will not by more .

 

[Gedemon]

5) https://twitter.com/SorenJohnson/status/1507465791578378241
"Stenger: NFP drew more active players into Civ 6 than either expansion. (Firaxis essentially moves to a live-ops model for NFP instead of the traditional expansion model inherited from its time as a boxed product.)"

I sincerely hope that's not a bad news for civ7 quality...

 

[pokiehl]

Thanks for posting this! It is very interesting.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I sincerely hope that's not a bad news for civ7 quality...

I kinda hope they stick with the modular model. That way the busted modes I can turn off, as well as the ones I don’t like.

 

[kaspergm]

I sincerely hope that's not a bad news for civ7 quality...

But I find some hope in the previous quote, which seems to indicate they chose the modular approach because of the late-stage addition: "Stenger: For Civ 6 NFP, the additions are “ice cream toppings” that sat on top of stable systems, which is ok b/c we were finishing Civ 6."

I kinda hope they stick with the modular model. That way the busted modes I can turn off, as well as the ones I don’t like.

How about they just stick to regular expansions and make the content quality like they used to? I sincerely hope this will be the last time that I pay for an expansion where 90 % of the content is stuff I'll never use.

 

[Leyrann]

How about they just stick to regular expansions and make the content quality like they used to?

Yes please.

I actually enjoy (some of) the game modes added in NFP, but it has a significantly higher count of content I don't use than a regular expansion. An expansion should introduce new mechanics that fit seamlessly into the game. With Secret Societies or Heroes and Legends (which are actually some of the more interesting game modes, imo), it's clear they're added on, not part of the whole. Only Industries and Corporations or whatever it's called feels like it could be part of a regular expansion. Some, like Zombie Apocalypse, are just... uh? Doesn't sound interesting at all, plus I imagine it warps the entire game around the game mode. And of course, on top of all that, most of these game modes depart from the game's concept of playing through history in one way or another by adding clear fantastical elements. They can be fun, but if you integrate them into the game more, you lose the game's biggest draw.

The added leaders and civs are nice to have though. More civs and leaders are always welcome!

 

[pokiehl]

I liked the NFP content and thought it was an exciting bookend to the game after it was finished with 2 traditional expansions.

No one has said NFP-style content should be done in lieu of traditional expansions. This is a strawman to me; some people are talking as if the decision was “regular expansion vs NFP” when it sounds like the real choice was “nothing at all vs NFP.”

I think the same pattern for Civ 7 would be nice: two expansions then send the game off with a cool season pass of experimental features.

The main thing I didn’t like about NFP was the execution. Content in NFP was in general sloppier or of lower quality than prior content, and that’s a shame. Everything felt worse: the art, the writing, the stability, the bugs…

 

[Jeppetto]

No one has said NFP-style content should be done in lieu of traditional expansions. This is a strawman to me; some people are talking as if the decision was “regular expansion vs NFP” when it sounds like the real choice was “nothing at all vs NFP.”

The reason that narrative is brought here is because it is directly said that it brought in more active players, so it is only rational to assume they would want to go 100% that way for Civ 7. To note, I am not saying I like or hate NFP or that I am supporting one or the other way, just clarifying that in this discusion it feels relevant to me. It's worth noting both that NFP was always inteded as new way of freshening up the game after its cycle as much as the fact it was apparently, at least in the eyes of the statistics-driven CEOs, a more successful way to introduce content compared to traditional way. In that regard, we are more discussing what we think the creators and sellers of the game would find good based on how they interpret numbers versus what we find good.

actually enjoy (some of) the game modes added in NFP, but it has a significantly higher count of content I don't use than a regular expansion. An expansion should introduce new mechanics that fit seamlessly into the game. With Secret Societies or Heroes and Legends (which are actually some of the more interesting game modes, imo), it's clear they're added on, not part of the whole. Only Industries and Corporations or whatever it's called feels like it could be part of a regular expansion. Some, like Zombie Apocalypse, are just... uh? Doesn't sound interesting at all, plus I imagine it warps the entire game around the game mode. And of course, on top of all that, most of these game modes depart from the game's concept of playing through history in one way or another by adding clear fantastical elements. They can be fun, but if you integrate them into the game more, you lose the game's biggest draw.

I feel like Zombie Apocalypse is fine as concept, it's just that it is misplaced. You have Game Feature like Corporations versus something more like Scenario in Zombie Apocalypse, both, however, refered to as Game Mode. Personally, I'd hope Scenarios would be shifted from minigames (that I am not sure If many people even play or appreaciate) into Game Modes as in optional aternations to how one plays the game. You play the same game, you don't feel like you only play small particle of it (compared to Scenarios), but it is optional compared to Standard Ruleset and may freshen up the game. Things like Corporations, Secret Societies and Heroes and Legends are more like Modules (or Game Modes only in sense of being Official Mods), extra optional features.

So an expansion might introduce Black Pleague as Game Mode (which adds Scenario, a set of actions and consequences, to Medieval Era that alters the way you play it, If you turn it on) and alongside it Secret Societies as Game Module (extra optional feature, mechanic, to play with the entire game).

The game might need a story/quest system similar to Beyond Earth/Humankind to support it. Conquest of Alexander would be no longer a minigame on the side, but an actual scenario, set of events, quests and rewards or penalties related to certain substory that may occur in your game, for example. I could see Zombie Apocalypse exactly fit into that space, when it's not minigame of its own (current Scenario), but proper optional part of your game.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I'm myself more curious how the NFP drew in more players than the previous expansions. I'd expect this to get less with time, since some people will lose interest and will not by more .

I think it reflects purchases over time and sustained "active player" statistics on Steam. Due to releasing content on a fairly regular basis during NFP, they saw a constant level of purchases and players playing the new content. In contrast, for a regular expansion, there is usually a big purchase rush as soon as it's released which quickly tapers off. Active player stats last longer, but mimic that trend also.

 

[aieeegrunt]

But I find some hope in the previous quote, which seems to indicate they chose the modular approach because of the late-stage addition: "Stenger: For Civ 6 NFP, the additions are “ice cream toppings” that sat on top of stable systems, which is ok b/c we were finishing Civ 6."

How about they just stick to regular expansions and make the content quality like they used to? I sincerely hope this will be the last time that I pay for an expansion where 90 % of the content is stuff I'll never use.

You are making a very, VERY risky bet that the QA will be dramatically improved over it virtually not existing in Civ6

Imagine stuff like AI’s never improving luxuries being baked into the game. If you are not on PC the game is basically ruined. It might be salvageable for the PC crowd if a mod can fix it. Maybe.

Like wholy hell if I didn’t have the option to not deal with all the crap in Gathering Storm like the abomination of WC or the horrible way strat resources are modelled the game would be pretty much unplayable for me

 

[blackbutterfly]

5) https://twitter.com/SorenJohnson/status/1507465791578378241
"Stenger: NFP drew more active players into Civ 6 than either expansion. (Firaxis essentially moves to a live-ops model for NFP instead of the traditional expansion model inherited from its time as a boxed product.)"

TBH I really liked getting NFP as timely DLCs.

That way we had time to digest them one at a time. However, as people have pointed out it's a QA disaster.
I played Civ VI this weekend on the train on my Switch and I forgot how slow it has become with NFP. That wasn't always the case. The base game that shipped on the Nintendo Switch SD card was surprisingly fast, even playing large maps.

Sounds like NFP style season pass is the future at Firaxis

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I sincerely hope that's not a bad news for civ7 quality...

How about they just stick to regular expansions and make the content quality like they used to? I sincerely hope this will be the last time that I pay for an expansion where 90 % of the content is stuff I'll never use.

If you take away the game modes, I don't see a problem with the way they were implemented. They are just DLC which are released on a schedule.

I feel like a lot of people only focus on the game modes, but forget about the other new stuff they brought in like the Diplo Quarter and Preserve districts, honey and maize resources, city-states, forest fire disaster and meteor shower, and world wonders such as the Statue of Zeus.

 

[Kaan Boztepe]

the only problem i have with the live service is the cost. the smaller ( or more numerous ) the DLC/expansion/seson pass or whatever the more expensive the game as a whole will get. i guess i will wait 5 years after the game releases to get it at a steam fire sale if they go down that road.

 

[Leucarum]

I feel like a lot of people only focus on the game modes, but forget about the other new stuff they brought in like the Diplo Quarter and Preserve districts, honey and maize resources, city-states, forest fire disaster and meteor shower, and world wonders such as the Statue of Zeus.

That's a solid point, I'm probably in this category, but to be honest the game modes are the easiest things to leave out of an NFP style approach since by definition they are optional - and as long as you have new civs that's probably 80% of what PR needs...

 

[Leyrann]

That's a solid point, I'm probably in this category, but to be honest the game modes are the easiest things to leave out of an NFP style approach since by definition they are optional - and as long as you have new civs that's probably 80% of what PR needs...

I suppose that's true.

However, I still find it hard to imagine that a fundamentally game-altering concept like loyalty (which includes governors, golden ages, dark ages, et cetera) or climate change (which includes the resource rework, new power plants, the power system, natural disasters) could be introduced in a DLC. You need to ship all these changes in one DLC/expansion, in particular if you offer the option to sell the DLCs separately (which is kinda the entire point), because otherwise you get a bunch of unconnected systems that do their own thing.

If the entire post-release model would be like this, you'd have Monopolies and Corporations, Barbarian Clans and ten to fifteen other such game modes active at once, but no interconnection between any of them.

A full-priced major expansion like R&F or GS does allow for such fundamental mechanics to be added and properly tied in to other systems. By leaving that out, you greatly limit how much you can actually introduce after the release of the base game, and for Civ 7 you're either going to end up with a game that has significantly fewer features than the complete Civ 6 including expansions, or you're going to end up with a base game that has a ton of superficial features that aren't engaging because they only get worked out in the DLCs.

 

[blackbutterfly]

However, I still find it hard to imagine that a fundamentally game-altering concept like loyalty (which includes governors, golden ages, dark ages, et cetera) or climate change (which includes the resource rework, new power plants, the power system, natural disasters) could be introduced in a DLC. You need to ship all these changes in one DLC/expansion, in particular if you offer the option to sell the DLCs separately (which is kinda the entire point), because otherwise you get a bunch of unconnected systems that do their own thing.

True, but many of the civs of both R&F and GS could have been released as standalone DLCs. Or as part of an expansion Season Pass(?).

E.g: Genghis Khan/Mongolia, Chandragupta, Poundmaker/Cree, Robert The Bruce/Scotland in R&F.
Mattias Corvinus/Hungary, Kupe/Maori, Pachacuti/Inca, Mansa Musa/Mali in GS.

That's more than half of the civs of each expansion.

In fact this would have been preferable, cos in MP we could potentially include using these civs like the ones in NFP. By that I mean I can play Babylon even though MP host doesn't have NFP. StandardRules or otherwise.
(FYI I only really play Civ VI multiplayer these days. Or mobile).

The civs that were tied to expansion systems like Mapuche and Elanor could have been released with the core of the "expansion". Perhaps as the last bundle? IDK

Oh and one more thing...I really wish R&F micky mouse governors were implemented as a game mode.

 

[Leyrann]

True, but many of the civs of both R&F and GS could have been released as standalone DLCs. Or as part of an expansion Season Pass(?).

E.g: Genghis Khan/Mongolia, Chandragupta, Poundmaker/Cree, Robert The Bruce/Scotland in R&F.
Mattias Corvinus/Hungary, Kupe/Maori, Pachacuti/Inca, Mansa Musa/Mali in GS.

That's more than half of the civs of each expansion.

In fact this would have been preferable, cos in MP we could potentially include using these civs like the ones in NFP. By that I mean I can play Babylon even though MP host doesn't have NFP. StandardRules or otherwise.
(FYI I only really play Civ VI multiplayer these days. Or mobile).

The civs that were tied to expansion systems like Mapuche and Elanor could have been released with the core of the "expansion". Perhaps as the last bundle? IDK

Oh and one more thing...I really wish R&F micky mouse governors were implemented as a game mode.

So you mean basically splitting things, where an expansion focuses strongly on gameplay mechanics that are integrated together and maybe three or four civs that rely on those mechanics, and then moving more of the civs to regularly released DLCs?

I'd be okay with that, so long as there is no net loss of complexity.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

True, but many of the civs of both R&F and GS could have been released as standalone DLCs. Or as part of an expansion Season Pass(?).

E.g: Genghis Khan/Mongolia, Chandragupta, Poundmaker/Cree, Robert The Bruce/Scotland in R&F.
Mattias Corvinus/Hungary, Kupe/Maori, Pachacuti/Inca, Mansa Musa/Mali in GS.

That's more than half of the civs of each expansion.

Mansa Musa actually grants a free trade route capacity when entering a golden age, so it does use expansion mechanics. Still I agree with everything else in which you said.
Arguably Pachacuti also gets earlier mountain tunnels too, which were released in GS.

There's also the flip side where you do release certain mechanics in a DLC, which could update abilities of certain civs, such as Georgia when playing with Dramatic Ages, or Sumeria playing with Heores and Legends mode.